The divide between the rich and poor has slowly been increasing for the past decade. Since the start of capitalism, bringing along with it the spread of globalization, there have been many uproars of movements against many injustices coming to attention by the mass public. With these movements also came an increased pressure on the government to help aid the civilians that are suffering all around the world. Unfortunately government aid is pretty limited when it comes to development due to security concerns, and the clashes some government aid programs might have with the government’s own self-interests. Even with many civil societies helping to promote human welfare, their abilities are also quite limited because of government interventions. While government contributions on social programs and infrastructure is at a steady decline, the need for private philanthropists to alleviate social struggles and aid in development is at its peak and at a better advantage then that of public philanthropists. Therefore, the small percent of wealthy individuals should actively contribute in charitable giving and private funding for the betterment of society as whole. By looking at many factors that contribute to private philanthropy one can eventually conclude that there are many assets for having a society aided by private funds. There is also some minor costs that are associated with private philanthropy but in this case the benefits exceed the costs. This paper will look at some works of philanthropy from private philanthropists such as Bill Gates and his contribution with the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation. This paper will also be looking at the major differences between private and public philanthropy, how these differences contribute...
... middle of paper ...
...d Melinda Gates. (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global- Health/HIV
Bishop, M. (2013). Philanthrocapitalism: Solving Public Problems through Private Means. Social Research, 80(2), 473-490
Bishop, Mathew, and Michael Green. 2008. Philanthrocapitalism: How giving Can Save the World. New York; Bloomsbury Press.
Canada Revenue Agency. (2012, July 11). Retrieved from website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts- gvng/chrts/glssry-eng.html
Ratnesar, R. (2011, February 03). Peter thiel: 21st century free radical. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_07/b4215072350752.htm
Sullivan, P. (2011, January 28). Weighing the best vehicles for philanthropic giving. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/your-money/asset-allocation/29wealth.html
(2013.). Retrieved from: http://www.mcf.org/publictrust/faq_public
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
In conclusion, the author’s purpose was to inform his audience about how poverty can affect an individual, a family, a population, and what we could do as the middle or upper class to help those at the bottom. Parks implies that as humans, we have a moral obligation to help those in need and help them achieve not only a healthy financial equilibrium, but also help them achieve their goals and what we can do to help their physical and mental
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
Kevin C. Robbins (2006) says modern organizations can trace their origin to the philanthropists who feel a sense of moral or spiritual obligation to a cause (p.13). It is at the basis of human relationships and civilization to care for the needs of others, and has been for centuries. Nearly every religion emphasizes in some way the spiritual and moral responsibility of individuals to contribute to others. Ancient Jews saw charitable giving as essential and imperative (Robbins 2006). It was expected that they participate in almsgiving for the poor, widows, and orphans. The Roman Empire contributed to our modern view of philanthropy, also. They had a sense of obligation to civilization to formalize and regulate philanthropy (Robbins 2006, p.17) Christianity has also greatly influenced the motives of philanthropy worldwide by encouraging the practice of self-sacrifice for the good of others in need.
Within modern society, monetary wealth is the main source of control and power; most people today see wealthy people as “more important” or “more powerful” just cause they have more money than them. Thus in turn giving the wealthy people the upper hand with no one to stand against them allowing them to do as they please. This is the case through many countries around the world. In some countries it varies slightly with the governments listening to there people but taking more influence from these wealthy people, it is on very rare occasion that these people are treated equally with the middle and lower class family’s. A study by Drs Keltner and Piff at the Universit...
In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer talks about how Americans don’t donate money to the poor like the children when they have the luxury lifestyle, such as a big flat screen TV or a Bugatti. The author tries to make arguments that Americans should donate money and do not need the luxury lifestyle to survive. Peter Singer is trying to get us to open our eyes and hopefully we will donate money to the needy. He will try to open our eyes by showing two different situations.
Peter Singer states a strong opinion about how affluent people are morally obligated to give some of their time and money towards the less fortunate. He argues how certain countries
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
Oprah Winfrey was born on January 29, 1954. Her home has been at Santa Barbra, California. She lives there with her partner, Stedman Graham. Oprah is a renowned talk show host, actress, American media proprietor, producer and philanthropist. The Oprah Winfrey show, multi-award winning talk show is what this great philanthropist is best known for. This show was the highest ranked show of its kind, being syndicated nationally in the period 1986-2011 (Winfrey 3). She is currently the CEO and owner of Oprah Winfrey Network. During her early life as an actress she was in the movie “The Color Purple” and the “Beloved”. In 2013, she starred in the movie, “The Butler” as Gloria Gaines. She has done documentaries and movies for HBO. She was also the voice for Gussie the Goose in “Charlotte’s Web” and also the voice Judge Bumbleden in the “Bee Movie”. This is just a few of the movies she was in.
Wealth is something that all mankind wish to obtain in great amounts. Wealth has been aspired since the Gilded Age and has not yet failed to continue being the number one concept on an individual's minds. Not all, in fact very few reach the ladders of wealth in which one can live in ultimate comfort. Many are left to live in ghastly situations and life styles of living. Is it more beneficial to live in a world of two classes the rich and the poor or in a world where the wealth is spread amongst mankind? A man named Andrew Carnegie, which of whom had great wealth and power, explains his idea of the gospel of wealth as it pertains to the system of competition and survival of the fittest and its advantages and disadvantages towards this country.
Landes, D., 1999. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 38-59
For a few people to amass great wealth in a society is the highest expression of civilization. This is the base argument of Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889) however he also explains the importance of philanthropy from those in the upper class, arguing that the wealthy entrepreneurs of society have a responsibility to distribute their excess wealth in a manner that proves to benefit society as a whole while avoiding wasting it on frivolous expenditures. Although claiming that the income gap between social classes has played an important role in society, Carnegie believes that the incredibly uneven distribution of wealth can be mitigated by the upper and lower classes working together to gain a mutually beneficial outcome. With an extending argument, Carl Becker seeks to explain in his article “Ideal Democracy” (1941), what his idea of the ideal democracy is, which he defines as “of the people, by the people, for the people” (148). However arguing that in today’s society, it is defined more so as “of the people, by the politicians, for whatever pressure groups can get their interests taken care of.” (148).This paper will serve to analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of each text’s argument and supporting material. In doing so we will touch on the rhetorical strategies and structure that each text employs, while connecting them together through comparison. Becker argues that democracy has changed over time, while Carnegie extends this argument by stating the change will be beneficial to the human race.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.